Kallax.io

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already supply the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description sensibly spends its words on behavior the annotations can't convey: the fixed result cap of 10, that each result carries its next public events, and that times are UTC. Pagination/empty-result behavior is still unstated, keeping it out of 5 territory.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the return shape, then the timezone caveat. No sentence is redundant and nothing is buried.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description usefully covers the return contract (10 closest, each with next public events, UTC timestamps), which is the main thing an agent needs. It doesn't state what happens when nothing matches or whether the 10-limit is configurable, leaving a minor gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents latitude, longitude, type and radiusKm in full. The description adds no format, unit, or default information beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find board game cafés, clubs, stores and groups listed on Kallax.io near a set of coordinates'), which is clearly distinct from sibling tools like find_events_nearby and find_games by virtue of the community resource. It does not explicitly name or route against those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance and never mentions the alternative tools (find_events_nearby, find_games, search_collection) that an agent must choose between. Usage is only implied by the resource name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: only public events, a hard cap of the 10 closest results, ordering by start time, and UTC timezone semantics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the most decision-relevant facts (proximity scope, result cap, ordering, timezone) are front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description usefully discloses the return shape (10 closest events, ordered by start time) and timezone. It is largely complete for a read-only search tool, with only minor gaps such as pagination or what fields each event carries.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (type, dates, radius, coordinates) is already documented in the schema, including defaults and the 100km radius cap. The description's only added parameter-level meaning is the UTC note, which is minor; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Find) and resource (public board game events) with the scoping qualifier 'near a set of coordinates'. The entity is clearly distinct from siblings like find_communities_nearby and find_games, though no sibling is named explicitly to route the agent.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the location-based framing ('near a set of coordinates') and the date-range mention, so an agent can infer this is the proximity search. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of when a sibling such as find_communities_nearby would be preferable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive safety, and the description adds behavior they cannot: results are capped at the 10 most popular matches, the cap can be escaped only by narrowing filters, and filters are conjunctive. It does not describe the shape of each returned match, but the result-limit disclosure is genuinely useful beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the subject domain is front-loaded before the filter and result-limit mechanics. Every sentence carries distinct information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a six-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers domain, filter combination, and the result cap, which is most of what an agent needs. It stops short of saying what a returned match contains, so the agent must probe to learn the return fields.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above baseline by stating cross-parameter semantics the schema cannot express (every filter optional, multiple filters AND-ed together). It adds no per-parameter syntax detail, but none is needed given the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clear specific verb+resource: 'Find board games in the Kallax.io catalogue,' which tells the agent exactly what domain is queried. It does not differentiate from the sibling search_collection, which plausibly also searches games, so an agent cannot fully disambiguate without opening schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

States that all filters are optional and combined with AND, and gives a concrete corrective action ('narrow the filters to see others') when the 10-result cap hides desired items. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not versus search_collection, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results are complete (no paging), ordered by title, and filters combine with AND rather than OR.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences: scope first, then the input requirement, then filter and result semantics. No sentence is redundant and nothing is buried.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the return set and its ordering. Combined with the annotations covering safety and the fully described schema, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters and a baseline of 3 would be defensible. The description still adds cross-parameter semantics the schema cannot express, namely the AND combination rule and the owned-vs-wishlist scope, which is why it lands above baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific verb (search) and resource (board games owned or wishlisted by a Kallax.io user or community), and scopes it to a person's or community's collection. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling find_games, so an agent must infer the collection-vs-catalog distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a clear precondition ('Requires a username, a community name, or both') and states that all filters are optional and AND-combined, which tells the agent how to compose calls. It stops short of naming when to prefer the sibling find_games over this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.